Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.19 seconds)Central Provinces Transport Services ... vs Raghunath Gopal Patwardhan on 6 November, 1956
Later, in. G.P. Transport Service Ltd., Nagpur v. Raghunath Gopal Patwardhan. (S) AIR 1957 SC 104, Venkatarama Ayyar, J., formulated the three different views on this subject held by the High Courts and the Industrial Tribunals in India, and expressed his approval of the third view, that a
dispute between ah employer and a single employee, though not per se an industrial dispute, may become one, if it is taken up by the union
or by a number of workmen.
The Newspapers Ltd vs The State Industrial Tribunal, U.P on 20 March, 1957
This has been accepted as a rule in two other cases decided by the Supreme Court, not to mention those decided by
the High Courts, namely, Newspapers Ltd. v. State Industrial Tribunal, U.P., (S) AIR 1957 SC 532 and
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353, though in its application to the facts before it the court has drawn a distinction Or imposed a limitation, particularly in the latter case.
D. N. Banerji vs P. R. Mukherjee And Others on 5 December, 1952
4. The basic principle has been stated thus by the Supreme Court in D. N. Banerji v. P. R. Mu-kherjee, AIR 1953 S.C. 58:--
The Kandan Textile Ltd. vs The Industrial Tribunal I And Ors. on 26 August, 1949
The only provision in the Act adverted to in the judgment was the definition of 'industrial dispute' in Section 2 (k) of the Act. Speaking with respect, it is not clear to me, how the above conclusion can follow from the premises relied on. The condition insisted upon in the judgment as a primary requirement, that on the date on which disciplinary action
is taken, the cause of the aggrieved workmen should be taken up by the union or by a substantial section of the establishment appears to me to be indefensible in principle and unworkable in practice, and was not supported by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I therefore find myself unable to adopt the reasoning in the above case.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Workmen Of Dimakuchi Tea Estate vs The Management Of Dimakuchitea Estate on 4 February, 1958
8. At the last stage, an argument was attempted, that the workmen concerned in this case could
not be members of the Union, under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926, As observed by the Supreme Court in Dimakuchi Tea Estate's case, AIR 1958 SC 353 :
Mahaboob Shahi Kulbarga Mills Co. Ltd. vs K. Vittal Kamath And Anr. on 7 November, 1958
Applying this, the Court came to the conclusion, that the appellants before it, who were the workmen of the tea estate, had no interest in the employment or non-employment of a member of the medical or technical staff of the estate, who on the terms of the definition of 'workman' as it was before the amendment of the year 1956, was held to be not a workman. This definition has been considerably widened by the Amendment Act of 1956, and the scope of the nexus may, 'in consequence, be deemed to have been enlarged. Mababoob Shahi Kulbarga Mills Co. Ltd. v. K. V. Kamath, AIR 1959 Mys. 180, in which a clerks' union which espoused the cause of an employee who was on a supervisory post, was held to be wanting in that community of
interest which is necessary to establish the nexus, may be cited as one instance, in which the limitation on the rule was applied.
Padarthy Ratnam And Company vs Industrial Tribunal And Ors. on 19 March, 1958
I have endeavoured to state the rule and one of its limitations, as recognized by the Supreme
Court; other limitations too have been evolved, but are not germane to the present purpose. I have adverted to this limitation as to nexus, not because its factual existence was the subject of controversy before me but because, in my opinion, once the
nexus is established, the condition of antecedent membership of the Union insisted upon so much by the learned counsel, whatever may be said of other conditions which may be thought of, recedes to the background, and cannot be regarded as of the subs- tance of the rule. It also seems to me, that the condition itself has no direct relation to the object of the Act or to the principle of the rule of transformation mentioned above, nor has the learned counsel for the petitioner succeeded in establishing any. All that he relied was on Padarthy Ratnam and Co. v. Industrial Tribunal, Guntur, (1958) 2 Lab LJ 290, decided by a single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court, as the only case laying down the proposition. It is therefore necessary to examine this case.
1